This paper is a critical analysis of the article authored by Mingrone et al. (2012), titled, which is titled: “Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes.” Mingrone et al. (2012) wanted to compare traditional medical therapy and bariatric surgery in the cure of diabetes mellitus type 2. The critique examines the strengths and weaknesses in the research topic, abstract, and literature review. Mingrone et al. (2012) did a laudable study that focused on comparing a relatively novel medical procedure to the conventional procedures, thereby contributing new knowledge in the field of diabetes care.
Although the researchers provided a short and well-structured topic, the topic did not provide enough details on why the research was carried out. For instance, the topic could have included terms like “effectiveness, safety, or efficacy” to clearly show what was to be assessed. As such, it did not raise my interest to go through the entire article. However, the variables, bariatric surgery, conventional medical therapy and type 2 diabetes, to be studied were clear.
The abstract was structured clearly to give an overview of the whole study. Reading through the abstract, which was divided into subsections such as background, methods, results and conclusion, raised my interest to go through the entire article. The findings of the study were summarized clearly in the conclusion, where the authors established that bariatric surgery was more effective than medical therapy in controlling diabetes mellitus type 2.
The researchers emphasized the importance of their study by providing a background about the available evidence regarding the treatment of type-2 diabetes through bypass surgery. Although the available literature showed that surgery resulted in better control of blood sugar levels compared to conventional medical therapy, the authors realized that the clinical evidence was not enough to show that bariatric surgery could be used as an alternative method to curb diabetes mellitus type 2. This gap formed the rationale for conducting the present study because evidence-based findings would be of clinical significance in controlling glucose levels in type 2 diabetes patients.
Although the literature review was not very elaborate, it was able to highlight the basis of the problem and a clear direction of the study. The researchers reviewed the literature to show that there was a lack of clinical evidence of level 1 status to support findings that bariatric surgery could be used to control diabetes type 2. They highlighted only one previous randomized controlled trial that showed the success of surgery in managing diabetes type II. However, that study had examined laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and not bariatric surgery, yet bariatric surgery showed more promise in controlling diabetes through mechanisms that did not involve loss of weight. This appraisal helped Mingrone et al. (2012) to come up with the aim of their study.
This study followed scientific procedures, thus its findings can be relied upon. The review of literature also helped in establishing the study rationale. Moreover, the study was aimed at contributing to nursing by providing novel information about the effectiveness of bariatric surgery in managing diabetes. This study is, therefore, relevant and it will enhance how diabetes type 2 is managed.
Reference
Mingrone, G., Panunzi, S., De Gaetano, A., Guidone, C… & Oaconelli, A. et al. (2012). Bariatric surgery versus conventional medical therapy for type 2 diabetes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 366(17), 1577-1585.